114 comments:

Since there are no good reasons to be an anti-gay bigot, those sort of people have to resort to stupid comments like the one you linked to.

It might be shocking to hear something so dumb coming from a Christian "think tank" like the Family Research Council. It's not so shocking when we consider that we're talking about the sort of people that are dumb enough to believe in fairy tales like the Bible.

The problem with the Secret Service engaging in prostitution is the same as with diplomats engaging in prostitution. There is the potential for blackmail, precisely because of the fact that it is illegal here and the near certainty that some of these people are married and have spouses who do not approve of fucking on the side, even if it's merely an economic transaction.

What's more, the potential for blackmail for the Secret Service is tremendous and awful. With diplomats, all you have is some government secrets, which probably are not very exciting (trust me). With the Secret Service, you could end up with a dead president and all the minor to major upheaval that would result.

It makes perfect sense to me, but then I'm a reactionary Christian nutjob. I live to meddle in other people's lives and make sure they don't have fun. 'Cause those secret service guys, they're just having fun ya know. It's not like their job should interfere with their fun. What's all this BS about safety, and defense? It shouldn't mean we have to be puritans for gosh sake.

Poor, bigoted Andy. It's always about his hatred of religion for him. He's as bad as any racist.

For myself, I feel great pity for the people who have somehow convinced themselves that life evolves from something to something else and simultaneously that the universe exploded out of precisely nothing. That's hilarious.

But go ahead and continue to be an anti-religious bigot, worse than any racist. There's no changing a bigot's mind. We know that much.

The problem with the Secret Service engaging in prostitution is the same as with diplomats engaging in prostitution. There is the potential for blackmail, precisely because of the fact that it is illegal here and the near certainty that some of these people are married and have spouses who do not approve of fucking on the side, even if it's merely an economic transaction.

What's more, the potential for blackmail for the Secret Service is tremendous and awful. With diplomats, all you have is some government secrets, which probably are not very exciting (trust me). With the Secret Service, you could end up with a dead president and all the minor to major upheaval that would result.

Or maybe it is a moral issue.

Actually, no: it clearly is a moral issue.

It wasn't illegal, was it?

So where is the power of blackmail?

In the moral realm.

I'm not sure why you want to deny the moral component of sexuality, but I guess even a conservative can get brainwashed by the PC crowd on somethings.

Aside: I am looking forward to seeing the subset of those who defended Bill Clinton's actions as "just sex" yet are upset about this action.

There is no difference: opening yourself to blackmail is dumb, and immoral on the face of it.

The morality message about using women trapped in a life of selling sex to strangers is the strong enslaving the weak.

Since Big Mo got the tribes out of Egypt 3400 years ago, morality has include treating their slaves better than prostitutes are treated.

But the Roman Imperium was a huge Slave State, and Obama's boys want to restart it.

Paying something for the hot and steamy sex is the only moral part, but that is never enough money to get the women's freedom. Ask DSC's maid and AlGore's masseuse.

But at least they are dedicated to keeping abortion safe, legal and available so their Prostitutes don't have to raise children and have a family with all the time that takes for birthdays and Christmases and grandchildren too.

Andy -- The fact that you hate all religions makes you more of a bigot. It doesn't help your cause to ask such asinine questions. Now we can say that you are an anti-religious bigot and that you have no self-awareness whatsoever.

As for the Bible, the very most hilarious part of your argument is that you haven't read it. Is Song of Songs a fairy tale? Proverbs? Is poetry a fairy tale? If Isaiah and Kings are fairy tales, what does that make every work of political commentary?

Of course, you have no idea, and the same could be said of most religious people. You are both hilarious, really: arguing the merits of texts you have never bothered to read.

Anti-religious bigots who pontificate about, apparently, every religious text without -- admittedly -- bothering to read a single one are dumb. They are also anti-religious bigots, worse than any racist.

I have not read the texts of the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Therefore, I do not spout about them. This is because I am not an anti-religious bigot who rants about religion worse than any racist. What other questions would you like me to answer, bigot?

No, Andy, none of those people are necessarily dumb because of their religious beliefs. Neither are you dumb because of your atheistic beliefs. Religious beliefs, yours included, are about faith, not reason.

Andy, you never fail to fail. This is YOUR topic, man. Can/does the law change/define morality? Contra Perkins, can you pick and choose morality? Who, including Perkins, does not, right? But what about on a societywide basis?You could have run with it. But, oh noooo, you could not pass on the opportunity to insult people who believe in a different god. Unthinking self-worshipping jackass. You and Mr. Perkins both live in a sealed echo chamber, albeit not the same one. Oh, wait, now THERE'S an immoral thought. I'd pay to watch that.

We are not paying the Secret Service employees to fuck, for free or as part of a paid transaction, nor to party. We are are not paying them to have fun, period. We are paying them to provide the best security possible, preferably in the world. That is their mission, their sole mission, by whatever standard one wants to employ.

It might be shocking to hear something so dumb coming from a Christian "think tank" like the Family Research Council. It's not so shocking when we consider that we're talking about the sort of people that are dumb enough to believe in fairy tales like the Bible.

Congrats, Andy, for being a bigger bigot than he is. I've always thought the biggest reason gay marriage fails to win majority votes so frequently is that most of its most fervent supporters are useless lugs like you.

Heck, I would vote for gay marriage if it came up for a vote --- unless you supported it. Then I'd have to vote against it because you are just loathesome.

Are people who think Joseph Smith received the divine written word of God dumb?

Without quoting South Park, please, describe the Joseph Smith story, oh expert o' Mormonism and all other faiths.

It might be shocking to hear something so dumb coming from a Christian "think tank" like the Family Research Council. It's not so shocking when we consider that we're talking about the sort of people that are dumb enough to believe in fairy tales like the Bible.

Obama is a big believer in the bible.

In fact, he goes around the country quoting it to justify higher taxes and his health care bill.

I guess the answer is: When we all die and get either dead or resurrected we'll know who is dumb and who isn't.If we just get dead well, OK I had a good life and never had any sexually transmitted diseases. I had a family I love and I loved them. If we get resurrected I'll have had all that plus I won't have made fun of God and He won't smite me.(The above philosophy is simplified for the dumb)

Why is homosexuality a "moral" issue? I've never really understood that. (Yes, I know, the Bible, but no one considers eating shrimp or touching menstrating women a moral issue.)

Lyssa,touching a menstruating woman and eating shrimp were in the Old Testament where a bunch of rules were given (mostly for health reasons). There is a whole section of the Bible devoted to how to remove mold from your home. But no one considers mold removal a moral issue.

"Morality" means "manner, character, proper behavior"

So I'm really surprised you had to ask. I think it might be an artifact of socially-liberal cognitive dissonance. All you need to do to completely grasp the fact that homosexuality is moral issue is look at the history of AIDS.

Andy does not even understand what bigotry is. Hating a single anti-religious bigoted douchebag is not bigotry. Bigotry is hating a class of people.

I don't have any problem with someone disliking me. I said "Own your bigotry." in reference to someone saying they would vote against gay marriage because they dislike me. People like to make the argument that they would support gay rights if it weren't for all those fags running around San Fran wearing leather, flaunting it and scaring the children. Own your bigotry.

Nathan said: "Morality" means "manner, character, proper behavior" ... All you need to do to completely grasp the fact that homosexuality is moral issue is look at the history of AIDS.

I'm not sure I'm following - it seems to me that your argument is circular - Homosexuality is a moral issue because it's improper, etc. But, why is it improper.

You use the example of AIDS - I can get on board with viewing irresponsible homosexual behavior from a moral perspective based on that, but no more so than irresponsible hetrosexual behavior (actually, I see irresponsible hetro behavior as more morally troubling, because of the whole babies thing). How does that translate into interpreting monogamous gay coupling as immoral? What's the basis for making it a moral issue (or saying that it is an issue of manner, character, or proper behavior) if we are talking about just the fact that someone's homosexual, not that the person is promisculously so?

I said "Own your bigotry." in reference to someone saying they would vote against gay marriage because they dislike me.

That's right, Andy. And that's not bigotry. That's hating you because you are an anti-religious bigot.

The part where you expand the argument to gay people in San Francisco is completely superfluous. Who has talked about them? No, the focus here is squarely on you and your anti-religious bigotry and general douchebaggery.

Lyssa -- If homosexuality is improper and immoral because of AIDS, it follows that the most moral people (and, if you believe in God, God's chosen people) are clearly and evidently lesbians, who will not be getting AIDS.

This right here is where people who foist modern views of public health onto values systems that happened long before modern views of public health were a twinkle in anyone's eye.

The focus is only on me when someone considers their vote on gay marriage if they think every other gay person doesn't matter.

You're really defending the idea that someone should vote against gay marriage based on their feelings about me? What if I was dating a black woman? Then would it make sense to vote to ban interracial marriages because they thought I was a d-bag?

Andy -- Gay marriage is not banned. You are free to marry anyone you want and there is nothing anyone can do about it anywhere in the United States. Therefore, the fact notwithstanding that the person making the point you are moaning about was making a joke, you don't even understand what you don't understand.

You don't seem to understand much of anything, really. I am so sad for you. Not really, because you are an anti-religious bigot, but in theory.

I feel embarrassed for Mr. Perkins. I mean really. To blame this embarrassment by these SS agents on homosexual political issues is just daft. I'm surprised Mr. Perkins didn't mention prayer in schools, the Griswold decision, abortion and The Beatles. I guess they go too far back in time to blame for this instance. Me, I blame the talking snake.

He's really the President of the FRC? Do they pay him a salary? Whatever it is, it's too much.

Hombre -- There is no reason to endorse laws that mandate behavior that is in line with Biblical morality (not least because the Bible authors are irreconcilably in disagreement about what such morality is). You run into serious philosophical issues there.

Also, dude, and I want you to think very carefully about this: the ongoing slide away from Biblical morality has been happening since the very first humans mentioned in the Bible. There's a doctrine about it, called Original Sin.

Thankfully, Jesus had some solutions. One was to give to God what is God's, and to Caesar what is Caesar's. You think real hard about what that ultimately means, and I'm quite confident that you will see that it is silly to have laws mandating Biblical morality, such as there is such a thing.

Les -- You assume that I am a Christian. Perhaps you should reconsider that assumption. Of course, you have a lot of assumptions you need to reconsider. But you gotta start somewhere, right? The longest journey begins with one step and all that.

I think that the repeal of DADT is just the latest in a whole host of steps towards a puritanical military. Having the benefit of experience stretching back to the 1960s, I can see the gradual tightening of all sorts of rules that we didn't follow back then. Don't Do Blue. Mandatory anti-harassment classes of all sorts. Don't drink. Don't party with the locals. No more strippers in the Club. For Gnu's sake, don't take a prostitute. All of which we cheerfully did back four decades ago in all sorts of countries, for both good and ill. The young people joining today must think they've joined a monastery. The only way to get laid is get married. Or be gay, I suppose.

rcommal said...We are not paying the Secret Service employees to fuck, for free or as part of a paid transaction, nor to party. We are are not paying them to have fun, period. We are paying them to provide the best security possible, preferably in the world. That is their mission, their sole mission, by whatever standard one wants to employ.========================By your "my boss is a beloved totalitarian boss who can tell me what legal activities I may or may not do off the job" - standards.

And please spare me the argument that the "diplomats, soldiers, secret service, elected officials, any other Government Employee anywhere -- are such SPECIAL, SPECIAL PEOPLE". That when they leave the workplace and are on their downtime they must avoid legal gambling, sex with foreign nationals, a whiff of alcohol, not engage in acts with a prostitute in countries where it is legal. That they must never wear Bermudas or Hawaiian shirts on their own time, lest they discredit "the image they must maintain". That they should never employ child labor in countries where such servants are customary and legal...lest they be seen as doing overseas what US child labor laws bar.Or attend social functions overseas with foreigners that have any "downmarks" according to UN or Human Rights self-annointed busibodies - starting with it best they shun contact with mass oppressing Israelis, Muslim oppressors of this or that noble victim group in Camel Land, Japanese who violate animal cruelty standards here by carving living fish and lobsters and mollusks as sushi.

When this moral hyperventing is over ---we will either have the lawyers for the bad, bad soldiers, secret service, diplomats sure to be dragged in as well, and any Fed or Congresscritter retinue so accused acquiited and reinstated ---or we will have the Religious Right, homosexual activists, Fundie preachers all gathered in one room to come out and dictate what legal behaviors are to remain acceptable and no cause for firing...or jail. And what behaviors away from the job are to be banned overseas, then here in America.

Cedarford -- You are always subject to American law when you are representing the United States abroad, particularly when you have diplomatic immunity or some other form of de facto immunity. That's the rule. You are right in one sense: it's not to project some image. You are wrong in every other sense, though: it's to protect the United States in any circumstance that might arise.

Seven Machos said...Everyone is wrong here. This is not a moral issue.

The problem with the Secret Service engaging in prostitution is the same as with diplomats engaging in prostitution. There is the potential for blackmail,

=================Make legally seeing a prostitute, having sex with non-American who might be an employee of another nation, engage drinking alcohol off job hours, going to gamble at a legal casino a firing offense offense under a new "Zero Tolerance" regime???? And make sure each person knows they lose their job for doing so, and anyone engaged in 'compromising them' knows that they will be fired if ratted out???

Gee! What could go wrong if we follow the Christian Taliban and femme-nazi sought after policies to end such opportunity to blackmail Americans by ensuring such Americans will be fired if any foreigner or ambitious underling rats them out...???

It is the "Chri$tian$" that have a problem with Homosexuality... The Body Of Christ has no issues because our Lord favored hanging out with the sexual offender, which both Old and New Testament discuss in great detail...

C'mon! David was a "man after God's own heart", and that old boy was banging Uriah's wife, knockin her up, putting a hit out on her husband... So it is safe to say that God is well aware that there is a 50/50 chance that His Creation might have some sexual issues...

No, David was a man "favored by God." You have to ask yourself: why did the author say this thing? Is it because he liked David, or is it because he could not explain David's persistent success any way other by sarcastically chalking it up to the apparent fact that God must have favored David.

Bill Clinton is our David. He was also favored by God, it seems, to the tremendous chagrin of many religious people.

At any rate, you would be better served using the Joshua story, as the Israeli spies consorted with a madame and used her whorehouse as a headquarters before bringing down the Wall of Jericho.

Lyssa,Now, aside from the fact that homosexuality is a moral issue (because any/all sexual behavior is a moral issue), if you want to know why some people believe homosexuality is immoral (i.e., behavior harmful to the self, others, and/or society)...well, there are many reasons, but here are a few:

1) The propensity of some to take one small part of their lives (there preference of partner gender for biomechanical or emotional stimulation leading to sexual gratification) and inflate it to be the most important part of their identity...to the point that it requires specific conforming behaviors and opinions.

2) The fact that there is no scientific or logical reason to see it as anything but abnormal behavior (albeit relatively common), yet the desire to satisfy that appetite is prioritized above many basic physical/mental health and safety concerns.

4) The similarity of the previous two issues to the issues/problems of those who engage in promiscuous extra-marital heterosexual behavior.

5) The extremely correlation of homosexuality and hypersexuality with sexual abuse/assault is strongly indicative that the behavior itself is a marker of sexual dysfunction...piling damage on top of damage isn't a good idea.

Morality can be seen as the series of codes and rules that have come into effect after generations and generations of a culture have tried out nearly every conceivable combination of possibilities.

The young often question wisdom, then proceed to harm themselves by re-learning the lessons of the past.

You are clearly convinced there is no harm associated with homosexual behavior. You are turning a blind eye to a great deal of documented harm.

Myself, I believe that homosexual desire is a conditioned response. Some are more easily conditioned to that behavior than others. I believe that anyone who says they were always a homosexual, or anyone who says they could never be homosexual under any circumstances, are both lying to themselves.

Nathan -- I applaud the fact that you are making normative, public policy arguments against homosexuality. That is a good deal better than the arguments that most people make.

That said, I think you are wrong. Homosexual behavior has been a norm in many highly civilized cultures. You can't explain it away in terms of current psychobabble.

Furthermore, you fail to take into account the sexual revolution. Mores have changed, because technology has changed. This happens in every facet of life; it's just more obvious when you talk about sex. Condoms and the pill have radically changed human behavior, just like the washing machine and the pulley and the wheel.

I also add that the promiscuity issues you raise are very easy to explain. Most men are promiscuous. It takes a great deal of continuous social pressure to induce non-promiscuous behavior among men. When men are having sex with other men, it would be odd not to see promiscuity.

@SevenM (4:17p): I'm not taking the position that Biblical tenets ought necessarily to be reflected in the law and I'm not sure that's what Perkins' was doing.

I think Perkins' was lamenting the continuing slide away from Biblical morality which, given his position, is exactly what he would be expected to do.

It's unfortunate that he picked an analogy, if it was an analogy, having to do with homosexuality. There were plenty of other examples to choose from.

I am not unaware of the numerous Old Testament apostasies of the Israelites and I doubt Perkins is either. It may be precisely the resultant consequences to the Israelites that incites his current lamentations.

Despite the fact that I don't yearn for codification of Bible morality, I can't agree that New Testament authors "are [were] irreconcilably in disagreement about what such morality is."

I am not unaware of the numerous Old Testament apostasies of the Israelites

Well, that's good, since about half the Bible covers this subject.

If the New Testament authors did not disagree with each other or with the writers of the books in the Old Testament, why write anything? Also,the Gospels are the same story told four different times. Why? That's kind of stupid, isn't it? The only way it makes any sense is if there is some disagreement. And, certainly, there was.

Unknown Pundit wrote (4:24p): Yes, but then again, when aren't Christians talking about someone else's morality and sitting in judgment on it, especially when it relates to sexual matters? It's what a lot of them do.

I'm actually a "pearls before swine" guy. Nevertheless, let me point out that for most Christians it is not about judging others. It's about that others will be judged. By all accounts, for unrepentant sinners, that looks to be pretty much of a bummer.

Many women in prostitution are not sex slaves, they are not kidnapped, they are not 'trafficked'. They do what they do because it is better than the alternative. A woman in Korea told me, words to the effect, that she would rather be a prostitute than be a slave to a Korean husband.

The woman who said that said that having sex with strangers for money was not her vocation, but her avocation. She said this while consulting a Korean-English dictionary. I think she meant it was her hobby. I met her at an after-hours casino in Kwang-Ju. She was a high stakes gambler.

Seven M wrote: If the New Testament authors did not disagree with each other or with the writers of the books in the Old Testament, why write anything? Also,the Gospels are the same story told four different times. Why? That's kind of stupid, isn't it? The only way it makes any sense is if there is some disagreement. And, certainly, there was.

Since the Synoptic Gospels are biographical sketches it is not surprising that they contain some of the same material, is it? However, Matthew and Luke contain considerable material not found in Mark. The Gospel of John differs markedly from the others. They were written for different audiences and the writers didn't know that they would be included in the New Testament or even that there would be a New Testament.

Beyond that, I'm sure we can agree that this is not the place for a dissertation on New Covenant Theology and the Epistles of St. Paul, but therein lies the answer to your "Why write anything?" question.

Since neither of us advocate the unexpurgated codification of Bible morality into US law, the answer is irrelevant anyway.

Do you think that people who believe in scientology and xenu and the souls and the volcano are dumb?

Not only are you an embarrassment to the homosexual community you troll in, but you are clearly to stupid to even understand that Scientology isn't even a real religion. Therefore their belief is fairly stupid, like you. Bravo dummy.

Seven M wrote: Hombre -- You recite pap. Your knowledge of the history of your own religion is sadly lacking.

Thank you for sharing your expert opinion, Seven. I am, as always, staggered by your erudition and your willingness to confine your remarks to the issues at hand rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks.

I see now, reviewing my 8:27 comment, how riddled with errors and far off the mark they were. LOL

For myself, I feel great pity for the people who have somehow convinced themselves that life evolves from something to something else and simultaneously that the universe exploded out of precisely nothing. That's hilarious.

I think Hillary is a very hard working woman, and I don't begrudge her a little fun in her downtime. And everyone engages in a little role playing from time to time. Nonetheless, I feel that it was regrettable that she made such a stink about the Secret Service agent not paying up in the morning. He probably thought he was doing her a favor by just going along with her little game. He had no way of knowing how cheap the Clintons are and what measures they'll go to in order to collect $47 dollars. This whole sordid incident doesn't reflect well on Mrs. Clinton. She makes far more than a Secret Service agent and could easily have written off the money. On the other hand, there is this much to be said for her tactics. It sends a message to the people with whom she's negotiating in Latin America that she's no one to fuck with.

I also add that the promiscuity issues you raise are very easy to explain. Most men are promiscuous. It takes a great deal of continuous social pressure to induce non-promiscuous behavior among men. When men are having sex with other men, it would be odd not to see promiscuity.

And it is harmful, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Most defenders of homosexual behavior point to the worst of heterosexual behavior and say, "See? We're no worse than that!"

They don't grasp the huge Venn diagram overlap between the people damaging heterosexual marriage and sexuality and the ones who support homosexual marriage and sexuality.

I have to go back to the music well for an analogy:Most of the great music--heck, most of the great art of any kind!-- was crafted and created under severe, self-imposed or culturally-imposed restrictions.

When people don't recognize, study, internalize, and respect wise limits, they create crap. Those who have truly studied can bend, break, change, or even erase those limits...but they do so from wisdom and experience, not ignorance and willfulness.

Appetites are insidious. The intensity of the sensation of satisfying an appetite after a time of want leads you to seek more of the same intensity. But chasing intensity leads you down a dangerous path. There is a reason that "sophisticated" was an insult for the first decades (centuries?) of the existence of the word.

Unrestrained pursuit of satisfaction of your appetites is a bad thing, regardless of the appetite.

All people have urges and appetites. Those who master them have happy, successful lives. Those who let their urges/appetites become their masters usually die early and extremely unhappy, as they whistle past the graveyard.

But please note: I don't favor external control of urges/appetites. That's tyranny. I just tire of those who balk at even the suggestion of self control and responsibility.

Most of the great music--heck, most of the great art of any kind!-- was crafted and created under severe, self-imposed or culturally-imposed restrictions.

I've always wondered if that was true. I don't think that abject poverty fosters creativity, but rather that complacent wealth and harmony destroys it. Orson Welles concurs: link. I'm not sure of the Swiss analogy.

Seven M wrote: Hombre -- The Gospels were written across a period of many years for people who had access to the same texts. The three later Gospels were, in fact, written based on previous ones written.

Although not factually inconsistent with the assertions in my post, yours is both unintelligible and unprovable. E.g. "The three later gospels ... based on previous ones...."

Really? How many "previous ones" were there? "In fact?" Not even the most well respected NT scholars would argue that their theories about ancient texts are "fact." No reputable scholar argues that The Gospel of John is "based on" any of the synoptics.

You simply don't know what you are talking about. I'd stick to The Great Gatsby. It's more your speed than the Bible.

I think this might have happened: they found themselves una mujer de la noche o dos with malice of forethought had planned a group thing that involved drinking and men with men together on girls and they asked the mujer how much, and she said so, but that was a price for one and it turned out to be four of them not one and she performed and wanted to be paid for all four and deserved to be paid for all four. Or three. Or maybe two, it was a shared thing, thus the dispute.

Drudge was reporting the president's schedule was in the room(s). Cedarford, why exaggerate the perfection that ordinary people demand of holders of important government positions? We keep being told they're worth their salaries because they're better than ordinary citizens, that they're worth higher pay than comparable civilian jobs. I don't know, for some reason I expect well-paid government servants to be all around better than I am myself, and that's rather easy, and then there's this.

I think its from early society finding out (the hard way) what works and what injures the tribe.

Something I call the Trichinosis Theory, after the practice of early tribes to ban pork on "moral" issues because too often, consumption led to parasitic infestations due to undercooked game that resulted in ataxia, paralysis and then death.

We (humans in general) like to think that we just recently "came of age" and are so much more enlightened than our stupid ignorant ancestors, but human society has been evolving for at least 12,000 years and some basic fundamentals were learned along the way.

Take adultery. Maybe the first instances weren't a big deal to the first communties. But after a few massacres, the leadership decided "look, people go apeshit when you sleep with their wives. We lost half our hunters to infighting last time around and now we are starving again. No more of that. We declare adultery to be wrong and punishable by stoning"

Early tribes may have had similar issues with homosexuality. The anal cavity does not have the same protections as the vaginal against disease. So people experimenting with homosexuality would have vectored disease into the general population more easily. Perhaps after a few AIDs-like plagues it was determined that homosexuality should also be declared "wrong". You can't have the head goat herder marrying the Chief's daughter only to sterilize her with some disease he picked up from his boy lover. Bad for the tribe.

We (humans in general) like to think that we just recently "came of age" and are so much more enlightened than our stupid ignorant ancestors, but human society has been evolving for at least 12,000 years and some basic fundamentals were learned along the way.

This is an interesting point. The left likes to point ut how the human species has evolved past certain behaviors. Violence, envy, etc. are traits of our ancestors.We have become extremely technologically adept. Our thirst for knowledge is insatiable. morally we art no different than the people that built the pyramids. Perhaps less. since their civilization lasted thousands of years and modern man seems to need to learn his moral lessons every other generation or so.

The primary issue is the serious breach in professionalism by the secret service and exposing the SS to penetration by foreign agents.

It is extremely common for there to be some kind of economic sexual trade between men with money and good looking women. For example, it is common for men to pick a wife because she appeals to him sexually. It is common for women to pick a husband because he has money or at least good economic prospects. The classic example of this is the trophy wife, where the older, rich guy picks a sexy younger wife because of her attractiveness and she picks him because of his money.

Something I call the Trichinosis Theory, after the practice of early tribes to ban pork on "moral" issues because too often, consumption led to parasitic infestations due to undercooked game that resulted in ataxia, paralysis and then death.

I've heard a counter theory that pork was banned because pigs eat the same diet as humans and this is a very real thread to subsistence and/or nomadic groups.

Adding to that; pigs will eat people and for a mystical society, the association of eating meat created from humans may carry too much bad mojo.

The primary issue is the serious breach in professionalism by the secret service and exposing the SS to penetration by foreign agents.

Yup. I was going to say something similar, but Seven did it for me at the top of the thread.

I'm also concerned about the rep damage this will cause. I've always thought of SS guys as almost perfect robot-like security. That aura is now gone. I wonder if our enemies will see them as weaker now and become emboldened.

I'd argue that they (the Gospels) do not disagree on core substance, just a few details. rather they emphasize different teaching and are meant to be accessible the different audiences, in the spirit of St Paul's effort to "be all things to all people" in order to spread the news.

As for the argument that laws that ignore one traditional morality weaken the case against other traditionally immoral acts, I don't see why it's necessarily stupid. That's a snap judgement. It's just not developed much by the speaker as he's talking to someone who shares his world view, so there's a presumed agreement.

"I'm also concerned about the rep damage this will cause. I've always thought of SS guys as almost perfect robot-like security. That aura is now gone. I wonder if our enemies will see them as weaker now and become emboldened."

Don't you believe the Secret Service will redouble its efforts after this incident and become stronger?

"Why is homosexuality a "moral" issue? I've never really understood that. (Yes, I know, the Bible, but no one considers eating shrimp or touching menstrating women a moral issue.)"

Christianity has always taught that there are differences between the moral law in the Old Testament and the purity laws centered around the Temple. This is what that long argument (in the New Testament) about circumcision was all about. That while the moral law remained intact, Christ's sacrifice on the Cross ended the focus on the Temple, therefore obviating the purity laws (all those things regarding clothing, shellfish, menstruation, etc).

Come on, I learned all that (in simpler language) in Sunday school when I was twelve. And no one else knows this? It's why I laugh every time I see arguments over homosexuality reduced to arguments over the purity laws. Clearly none of the people making this argument know anything at all about Christian theology. Of course, that can be blamed as much on churches not teaching *why* they still oppose homosexuality but not eating shellfish as it can on the lack of intellectual curiosity of Christianity's critics.

Agree with the distinction or not, but it was the *first major theological debate* within the Church. So early that it's in the New Testament itself.

"We have become extremely technologically adept. Our thirst for knowledge is insatiable. morally we art no different than the people that built the pyramids. Perhaps less. since their civilization lasted thousands of years and modern man seems to need to learn his moral lessons every other generation or so."

Humans have a tendency to forget things they didn't learn first-hand. Or not take them seriously. We're in one of those phases now, where people seem to be unwilling to accept the hard-won truths learned by past generations. Not that we shouldn't constantly be reconsidering things, just that we shouldn't be abandoning those ideas with such ignorant gusto.

I'm an agnostic, it seems obvious to me that if there is a god who has infinite intelligence, then there is no way we could know anything about such a god.

Having said that, most people need religion for the moral structure that it provides. Religion where I live seems to be gradually seguing from god based to a society based on morality and life coping skills/therapy.

"Something I call the Trichinosis Theory, after the practice of early tribes to ban pork on "moral" issues because too often, consumption led to parasitic infestations due to undercooked game that resulted in ataxia, paralysis and then death.

We (humans in general) like to think that we just recently "came of age" and are so much more enlightened than our stupid ignorant ancestors, but human society has been evolving for at least 12,000 years and some basic fundamentals were learned along the way."

Fen... There are a couple of holes in your theory.

First: Trichinosis is not commonly fatal, and in fact, often shows no symptoms of infection. You were much more likely to die of cholera than of Trich.

Second: The cause of Trichinosis was not known until the middle 1800, so 12,000 year old tribes had no idea that eating raw pork cause it. Plus, since you couldn't exactly run to a store to get food, most people ate what they could find, which includes pork. If these noble tribesman were so smart, why did most of them never figure out not to shit where they eat, thus, reducing the infection rate of Cholera.

The demand not to eat pork is because of a bias non-cud chewing animals. If they thought it was because of illness, they would have said so. And eating lobster doesn't cause Trich, or any other major disease! So,no, it wasn't about any illness. It was about adapting preexisting prejudices into the text.

Remember, even though the Bible is the word of God, it was written by humans, which means it was prone to have some fallible bits in there. Some was included as tests of your faith, to show how faithful you were.